search

slightlyoff / AppInstallImprovements

Web App Install Banners explainer/proposal
Apache License 2.0
27 stars 2 forks source link

Contents of `related_applications` list...URLs only? #5

Open slightlyoff opened 9 years ago

slightlyoff commented 9 years ago

It has been suggested that perhaps the entries in related_applications should only be URLs. Would like to get this sorted out ASAP.

@benfrancis, @marcoscaceres: what say you?

benfrancis commented 9 years ago

Hi @slightlyoff,

I think you and I agree on most things, but "related_applications" is not one of them. Yes URLs would make it look more like it's got something to do with the web than strings like "ios" and "android", but that doesn't change the fact that this feature would very obviously be bad for the web and promote fragmentation.

To me it would be like standardising an HTML link relation to provide a link to another web page where you can read about and download an alternate version of the current web site as a collection of Microsoft Word documents inside a .cab file over an smb:// URI. Trying to be as objective as I can, I can see how you might argue this is slightly similar to <link rel="alternate">, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it should become part of a web standard. At the very best you could provide a direct link to an Android/iOS/Windows Store app package over an HTTP URL, rather than just a link to a meta page on a central app store? That might be easier to argue for, but I suspect isn't compatible with the way those app packages are currently installed?

Google doesn't need Mozilla's permission to add this feature to Chrome, and as far as I know Mozilla has no interest in implementing it, so if it's legitimisation you're looking for then I suggest you might have more luck talking to Apple and Microsoft. They share Google's vested interest in directing traffic away from the open web, into parallel closed walled gardens of content they control, and may be more interested in standardising this feature.

I don't buy the argument that this will somehow reduce how aggressively developers promote their non-web apps on the web, I think this will be the case as long as those non-web platforms remain trendy and provide a more slick user experience. I don't believe there's any quick fix for that, it's a long game. I would rather concentrate our efforts on working on innovations which will make the web competitive again, like Service Workers.

As a Googler I can understand why you would propose this feature, but as a member of the W3C TAG I find it difficult to believe you really think it's good for the web.

All the Best

Ben

slightlyoff commented 9 years ago

Hey Ben,

I understand your concerns, both substantive and implied ("as a Googler...").

There are a few things I ask you to consider and which swayed me:

My motives here are entirely, 100% pro-web. App install banners and UI are happening today. Nothing here changes that or makes them more prevalent, and in particular, I fully support UAs not triggering any sort of UI around this.

marcoscaceres commented 9 years ago

From Mozilla's perspective, I share some of Ben's concerns - however, as I argued elsewhere, as Editor I also accept that the reality is that Web Apps need to coexist with native apps (while continuing to compete for developer mind-share). As such, I'm supportive of adding this feature to the manifest spec (specially if multiple implementers are interested in it).

benfrancis commented 9 years ago

@slightlyoff I have a proposal https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/326#issuecomment-85946714

mathiasbynens commented 9 years ago

A related question regarding this example: 

    {
      "platform": "android",
      "location": "<play store url>",
    }

Restricting "platform": "android" to Play Store URLs seems too restrictive, since there are alternate app stores. In regions where the Google Play Store is not available, can non-Play Store URLs be used?